`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`The Gillette Company, Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`America, Inc.
`Petitioners,
`
`
`v.
`
`Zond, LLC.
`Patent Owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-006041
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01482 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`May 26, 2015
`
`IPR2014-604 (joined with IPR2014-01482)
`
`IPR2014-578 (joined with IPR2014-01494) and
`
`Zond, LLC.
`
`v.
`
`Semiconductor America, Inc.
`
`The Gillette Company, Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu
`
`The ’775 Patent:
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`2
`
`•Conclusion
`
`•Issues Raised by Patent Owner
`
`•The Instituted Combinations
`
`•Overview of the ‘775 Patent
`
`Overview
`
`
`
`3
`
`US Patent 6,896,775, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1001
`
`The ’775 Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 2, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`
`substrate(211)
`Bias provided to
`
`dotted region (245/246)
`Plasma generated in
`
`supply(234)
`(216) through pulsed power
`anode(238) and cathode
`Electrical pulse applied across
`
`permanent magnets (256)
`Magnetic field applied using
`
`processing apparatus"
`enhanced plasma
`Relates to "magnetically
`The ’775 Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 5, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`
`Power pulse (324)
`
`Current pulse (322)
`
`Voltage pulse (320)
`
`The ’775 Patent
`
`
`
`6
`
`‘775 Patent, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1001
`
`Representative Independent Claims 1 and 15
`The ’775 Patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`Decision on Institution, IPR2014-604, Paper No. 9
`
`Decision on Institution, IPR2014-578, Paper No. 13
`
`Petitioner would prevail based on the following grounds:
`The Board found that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Board’s Decisions on Institution
`
`
`
`8
`
`•“means for applying a bias voltage”
`•“means for exchanging”
`•“means for applying an electrical field [or pulse]”
`•“means for generating a magnetic field”
`•“means for ionizing a [volume of] feed gas”
`•“ionizing a feed gas”
`•“strongly-ionized plasma”
`•“weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`There is no dispute as to the constructions adopted by the Board
`
`Adopted by the Board
`Patent Owner Does Not Challenge Construction
`
`
`
`9
`
`))
`
`tti
`
`Wang, Fig. 1, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1008 (with annotations)
`
`ithh
`
`Fi1IPR201400578E1008((
`
`W
`
`Bias provided to substrate (20)
`
`rotates with magnetron
`
`-e.g. dotted region (42), which
`by pulsed DC supply (80)
`Plasma generated below cathode
`
`anode(24) and cathode(14)
`Electrical pulse applied across
`
`rotatable magnetron (40)
`Magnetic field applied using
`
`Applied Prior Art: Wang
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008 (with annotations)
`Wang, Fig. 1, IPR2014-00578,
`
`
`
`\mx8e-Eemm&‘Hd:§§s\mx8e-EemmE‘N.3€38RbH.wESQm=o:mo_:m
`
`Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 2, IPR2014-00578,
`
`10
`
`o—
`
`
`
`?:o:Eo::cES;M63.5«m:o:Eo::cES;Sew.xm
`
`
`
`_ow:2¢:¢muEmu_._
`
`supply
`
`>_o_o_:m
`
`Pulsed power
`
`
`
`3>>oo__owm_:._
`
`cathode
`
`m_oo.=_ou
`
`anode
`
`wvocc
`
`magnet
`
`_m:maE
`
`.1.
`,%In
`J.?
`W,
`
` dW\\.m.&.V§\\.\
`
`\‘&§
`
`Wang
`
`‘775 Patent
`
`E33mk.
`
`The ’775 Patent and ’382 Patent (Wang)
`
`
`
`
`
`3:52:=_2..._Sn..2...E25,.mk.2:
`
`in dotted region
`Plasma generated
`
`
`
` firm.»E:o_m2_o¢=o_oEL
`
`Sam
`
`
`
`
`
`1+O.mu%_zOD9._om_o_>o.o_mo_m_
`
`substrate (20)
`Bias provided to
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Wang, Figs. 6 and 7, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1008 (with annotations)
`
`Wang, 7:13-17, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1008
`
`(seeFigure 6)
`Power pulse
`
`Wang, 7:61-63, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1008
`
`(seeFigure 7)
`Voltage pulse
`
`Applied Prior Art: Wang
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 5, IPR2014-578,
`
`HartsoughTr. 149:25 –150:6, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1030
`
`…
`
`A.Yes.
`
`Do you see that?
`in the maintenance phase."
`voltage and substantial current
`ignition phase and a lower
`and almost no current in the
`will output relatively high voltage
`
`Q."A typical pulsed power supply
`
`Phase
`Maintenance
`
`Phase
`Ignition
`
`•Dr. Hartsoughadmits that Fig. 5 of the ‘775 patent discloses
`
`the output of Wang’s typical pulsed power supply
`
`Applied Prior Art: Wang
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 5, IPR2014-578,
`
`HartsoughTr. 150:7-9, 17-20; IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1030
`
`A. Yes.
`
`right?
`of the '775 patent is showing;
`
`Q.And that's exactly what Figure 5
`
`A.Yes.
`
`power supply operates; right?
`explaining how a typical pulsed
`Q.So we can agree that Wang is
`
`Phase
`Maintenance
`Wang, Fig. 6, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1008 (with annotations)
`
`Phase
`Ignition
`
`•Dr. Hartsoughadmits Wang’s electrical
`
`the ‘775 patent is showing”
`pulses are “exactly what Figure 5 of
`
`Applied Prior Art: Wang
`
`
`
`14
`
`(claims 15 and 30)
`•Whether the method claims require a specific order
`
`(claims 1, 36 and 37)
`•Whether Wang’s anode and cathode form a gap
`
`one another (claim 1)
`•Whether Wang’s anode and cathode are adjacentto
`Claims
`Issues Raised by Patent Owner Related to Independent
`
`
`
`15
`
`‘775 Patent, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1001
`
`Representative Independent Claims 1 and 15
`The ’775 Patent
`
`
`
`16
`
`cathodethat are “adjacent” to one
`(with annotations showing anodeand
`Wang, Figure 1, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1008
`
`another and forming “gap”)
`
`see also HartsoughDepoTr. at 22:22-
`‘775 Patent, IPR2014-604, Ex. 1028; ;
`Dr. Hartsough’sannotation of “gap” in
`
`25, Ex. 1030
`
`HartsoughDepoTr. at 75:23-76:8,
`IPR2014-578, Ex. 1029; see also
`“adjacent” includes purple region,
`Dr. Hartsough’sinterpretation of
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`•Wang’s anode and cathode form a gap
`•Wang’s anode and cathode are adjacent to one another
`IndependentClaims 1, 36 and 37
`Wang’s Anode and Cathode are Adjacent and Form a Gap
`
`
`
`17
`
`HartsoughDepo. at 20:14-21.3, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1030
`
`A. Yeah.
`Q. That’s what you meant by “edge” earlier?
`A. It could also be those distances.
`Q. Show me where all of the gaps… Why don’t you do it in black…
`
`HartsoughDepo. at 75:23-76:8, IPR2014-578, Ex 1030
`
`A. Yes.
`Q. So are they adjacent within the context of the '775 claims?
`A. In that depiction, there are portions that are adjacent.
`
`Q. I'll pose my question again: Is the anode and cathode
`
`depicted in Exhibit 1029 adjacent to one another?
`
`IndependentClaims 1, 36 and 37
`Wang’s Anode and Cathode are Adjacent and Form a Gap
`
`
`
`18
`
`HartsoughDec. at ¶ 61, IPR2014-578 (Ex. 2006)
`Patent Owner’s Response at p. 22, IPR2014-578 citing
`
`‘775 Patent at 5:19-20, IPR2014-578 (Ex. 2006)
`Patent Owner’s Response at p. 31, IPR2014-578 citing
`
`•Both “gaps” are about 10 cm apart
`IndependentClaims 1, 36 and 37
`Wang’s Anode and Cathode are Adjacent and Form a Gap
`
`
`
`19
`
`Bravman Dep. 56:25-58:2, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1030
`
`would also be []proximate.
`are []proximate, the[n] the cathode and substrate
`closer to the cathode. So the anode and cathode
`at least in some instances the substrate being even
`disclosure … the geometry described in Wang has
`
`A. … [M]y opinion is that it is met by the Wang
`
`of cross-examination.
`MR. FAHMI: Objection, form. Objection. Beyond the scope
`
`Q.What is –what is your opinion regarding whether that
`A.Yes. …
`
`limitation is met?
`
`substrate that is position []proximate to the cathode?
`voltage supply that applies bias voltage to a
`
`Q. Do you recall being asked about the limitation of
`
`’775 Patent, Figure 1, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1001
`
`(with annotations showing anodeand
`
`cathode)
`
`•Wang’s substrate and cathode are proximate to one another
`IndependentClaims 1 and 15
`Wang’s Substrate is ProximateTo the Cathode
`
`
`
`20
`
`(interposing objection omitted)
`HartsoughTr. 87:6-18, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1030
`
`A.Yes.
`
`Q. And that's an embodiment of Claim
`A. In that embodiment, yeah.
`
`15; right?
`
`field will already be on; right?
`permanent magnet, so the magnetic
`Q. Because, as we said, Figure 2 has a
`A.Correct.
`
`of a magnetic field; right?
`have to occur before the generation
`step of ionizing a feed gas does not
`Q. In Claim 15 of the '775 patent, the
`
`“generating magnetic field”
`
`•Dr. Hartsoughadmits “ionizing a feed gas” can occur after
`IndependentClaims 15 and 30
`Method Claims Do Not Require a Specific Order
`
`
`
`21
`
`13A, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1001
`’775 Patent, Figures 12A and
`
`“generating magnetic field”
`
`•‘775 Patent itself teaches “ionizing a feed gas” can occur after
`IndependentClaims 15 and 30
`Method Claims Do Not Require a Specific Order
`
`
`
`22
`
`•One skilled in the art would have combined the prior art despite
`
`physical differences
`
`•Patent Owner argues the references would not have been
`
`combined due to physical differences
`
`combine the prior art
`increasing plasma density and it would have been obvious to
`•Applied prior art all directed to achieving the same purpose of
`
`Prior Art
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Combined the
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2014-578, Ex. 1003
`Kudryavtsev, Abstract,
`Kdd
`
`t
`
`t
`
`Abbt
`
`IPR2014-578, Ex. 1002
`Mozgrin, p. 400,
`Mozgrinp400
`
`IPR2014-578, Ex. 1008
`Wang, Abstract,
`
`Using Pulses
`Prior Art All Directed to Increasing Plasma Density
`
`
`
`24
`
`Mozgrinat 409, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1002
`
`Petition at p. 53, IPR2014-578, citing DeVito Decl. ¶190 (Ex. 1011)
`“As taught in Mozgrin, high density plasma is desirable because it results
`
`in a high etch rate.”
`
`•Undisputed that high plasma density results in high etch rate
`High Etch Rate
`High Plasma Density Desirable Because It Results in
`
`
`
`25
`
`(interposing objection omitted)
`Hartsough‘155 Dep. at 49:20-24, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1030
`
`would be motivated, to increase the sputter etching rate; right?
`Q. So in –in general, it’s desirable, and the person of ordinary skill
`
`A. Yes.
`
`…
`
`Increase the Sputter Etching Rate
`Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Prior Art To
`Patent Owner’s Expert Admits One Skilled In the Art
`
`
`
`26
`
`Kudryavtsevat 34, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1003
`
`References When Pulsed Plasma Generation Occurs
`Prior Art Provides Motivation to Combine Prior Art
`
`
`
`27
`
`Mozgrinat p. 401, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1002
`
`Different Experimental Systems
`Prior Art, In Fact, Combined the Prior Art in Physically
`
`
`
`28
`
`Bravman Declaration at ¶74, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1031
`
`•One skilled in the art would be able to modify
`
`•Differences highlighted by Patent Owner are routine variables
`
`•Such alleged differences are inconsequential
`
`Reasons Not To Combine Prior Art Without Merit
`Patent Owner’s Reliance on Physical Differences As
`
`
`
`29
`
`(interposing objection omitted)
`HartsoughTr. 152:9-18, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1030
`
`skill of a person of –of ordinary skill in the art.
`A.… It wouldn’t be –it –it wouldn’t be beyond the
`
`supply with a pulsed DC supply; right? …
`skill would not be able to combine a constant DC
`Q. So it’s not your position that a person of ordinary
`
`Supplies
`Patent Owner’s Expert On the Combination of Power
`
`
`
`30
`
`for a particular intended purpose (claims 4, 5 and 9)
`•Whether Wang teaches choosing rise time and volume
`
`(claims 21, 24 and 33)
`•Whether Wang teaches a substantially uniform plasma
`
`(claims 2 and 18)
`•Whether Wang teaches a quasi-static electric field
`
`constant power (claims 16 and 17)
`•Whether Wang teaches a constant voltage or
`Dependent Claims
`Issues Raised by Patent Owner Related to
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 5, IPR2014-578,
`
`23.5225.5::SS5\mR-Eemmn=mat£§&m?
`
`<oaTS.c..
`
`
`
`3.50V‘Z6.._.I
`
`
`
`
`
`2.209e..._....x_.o.?
`
`...o>>oo_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.a§-§..Efimcou:.25..om_o=o>Eflmcou:£04
`
`power”
`both“constant voltage” and “constant
`
`−However, region annotated in blue shows
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mkofi2.3E_o9.9.o::c.569..m>m»>o_._I
`
`voltage) to hold constant
`one variable (power, current or
`
`
`
`
`
`._oEmtau.._m»>oo:m_o_o_._o>mco
`
`
`
`Eotcou_o_o;2Amm9._o>
`
`v_u_o_S2:mcomtmmmc._m:»>OE9.on_I
`
`−Patent Owner asserts one must pick
`Claims 16 and 17
`
`Phase
`Maintenance
`
`Phase
`Ignition
`
`
`
`wu:u:wnfi.m%.u._.»__n.w_%_.__..__m_N:.0:.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wang Teaches Constant Voltage and Constant Power
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`._o>>on_Efimcou_o:ummu=o>—:U—m:OUmm;uum._.m:u>>
`
`
`
`32
`
`Ex. 1001 (with annotations)
`‘775 Patent, Fig. 5, IPR2014-578,
`
`‘
`
`Phase
`Maintenance
`
`Phase
`Ignition
`
`Ex. 1008 (with annotations)
`Wang, Fig. 6, IPR2014-578,
`
`(interposing objection omitted)
`HartsoughTr. 138:1-8, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1030
`In the --in the --what's shown in Figure 6, yes.
`
`A.
`
`quasi-static electric field; right?
`would meet the '775 patent's definition of a
`longer than the collision time for electrons, that
`If the region between T5 and T6 in Figure 5 is
`
`Q.
`
`−However, power pulse width corresponds to
`
`constant voltage region in blue
`
`−Patent Owner argues comparison of power
`Claims 2 and 18
`
`pulse width with collision time is improper
`
`Quasi-static Electric Field Taught by Wang
`
`
`
`33
`
`Revised Petition, p. 47, IPR2014-578, Paper No. 9
`
`Wang, 5:45-48, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1008
`
`50 μs >>0.188 μs
`
`gas particles.”
`electric field variation that is much greater than the collision time for electrons with neutral
`
`‘775 Patent, 7:43-46, IPR2014-00578, Ex. 1008
`
`−“By quasi-static electric field we mean an electric field that has a characteristic time of
`
`−Wang teaches claimed “quasi-static electric field”
`Claims 2 and 18
`Quasi-static Electric Field Taught by Wang
`
`
`
`34
`
`88
`77
`55
`
`44
`11
`00
`22
`RR
`PP
`
`II
`
`11
`11
`
`t
`
`Petitioner’s Reply at p. 11, IPR2014-578
`
`ll
`
`RR
`
`’’
`
`tiitii
`
`PP
`
`−However, magnet rotates and plasma is
`
`uniform over time
`
`plasma (HDP) region 42 is not uniform
`
`−Patent Owner argues high density
`Claims 21, 24 and 33
`
`Wang Teaches Substantially Uniform Plasma
`
`
`
`35
`
`’775 Patent, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1001
`
`−Patent Owner argues references do not teach choosing rise time or volume to achieve
`Claims 4, 5 and 9
`
`increased ionization or etch rate.
`
`Ionization Rate/Etch Rate
`Wang Chose Rise Time and Volume to Increase
`
`
`
`36
`
`Wang, 1:5-8, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1008
`
`(interposing objection omitted; emphasis added)
`Hartsough‘184 Dep, 88:19 –89:6, IPR2014-578, Ex. 1032
`
`in the low-density state, the rate would increase.
`So increase --increase from the rate of ionization
`different rate of ionization between the two states.
`It indicates an increase --an --it indicates a
`
`A.
`
`of ionization?
`does that indicate a quick increase in the rate
`if you have a quick increase in the plasma density,
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma,
`
`Q.When the voltage --when the increased voltage is
`
`−Wang teaches choosing experimental conditions that lead to increased plasma density
`
`−However, Patent Owner’s expert admits quick increase in plasma density leads to
`Claims 4, 5 and 9
`
`increased ionization rate
`
`Ionization Rate/Etch Rate
`Wang Chose Rise Time and Volume to Increase
`
`
`
`37
`
`IPR2014-604, Paper No. 9
`
`IPR2014-578, Paper No. 13
`
`•All disputed claims of the ‘775 patent are invalid in view of the
`
`following combination of cited references
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00604
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Argument
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Tel.: 202-663-6000
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00604
`Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Argument
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 20, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
`(cid:120) Petitioners’ Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Argument
`
`to be served via e-mail, as previously agreed by the parties, on the following
`
`attorneys of record:
`
`
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`84 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`Tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
` /Yung-Hoon Ha/
`
` Yung-Hoon Ha
`
` Registration No. 56,368